On 08/18/2014 05:19 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> (In that post, I was focusing on the cross-axis *min*
>> size as the relevant "constraint", but it appears I should instead have
>> been focusing on the cross-axis *max* size, which in retrospect makes
>> sense.)
>
> min size will usually be zero, so we can't transport it across the
> aspect ratio; it'll nearly always dominate the terms and produce a
> min-size of 0.
Right -- I actually thought that might've been the intent, since this
bullet-point is about items with an intrinsic aspect ratio, and such
things (e.g. images) generally *can* be scaled down to an arbitrarily
small size without overflowing. (and min-size:auto is about preventing
overflow; so if there's no risk of overflow, then it doesn't need to do
anything special)
Anyway, I think the new spec language makes sense; I'll post an update
if it stops making sense when I implement it. :)